Former BP chief brought in to axe jobs in Whitehall and save taxpayers billions of pounds

Lord Browne arrives at a dinner and auction at the Royal Hospital Chelsea last night as he was parachuted in as the Government's chief Whitehall axeman

Controversial former BP boss Lord Browne has been parachuted in as the Government's chief Whitehall axeman.

The so-called 'Sun King', who was Tony Blair's favourite businessman, has been asked to use ruthless business methods to save billions of pounds of taxpayers' money.

He was unveiled as the Government's 'lead non-executive director' - and will oversee a string of senior business figures who will be made non-executive directors on the board of every Whitehall department.

But the appointment was criticised by MPs, who said the timing was
extraordinary given the ongoing environmental catastrophe in the Gulf
of Mexico.

Lord Browne faced criticism for operational disasters on his
watch, including a 2005 explosion at the company's Texas City oil
refinery, which caused 15 deaths and 170 injuries, and a large oil
spill in Alaska in 2006.

He admitted in his memoirs that BP relied too much on
'personal safety' - telling staff how to remain safe at work - and not
enough on 'process safety', making sure equipment was safe.

He also has a chequered personal history, having resigned as
BP chairman in 2007 after being caught lying to a court about his
relationship with Canadian boyfriend Jeff Chevalier.

However, Lord Browne, who was ennobled by Mr Blair, has an extraordinary track record in cultivating senior politicians.

Labour leadership contender Diane Abbott said: 'He is a creature
of the executive suite, who seems to know nothing about the world
outside the boardroom.

'Many of the problems that BP now has in America stem from his tenure running the company.

'That suggests that this claim about the new politics from the
Lib-Con coalition is completely bogus. There is no more old-school
business figure than Lord Browne.'

Former Labour minister Michael Meacher said: 'I should think
this appointment will raise a few eyebrows in America, given the
culture at BP for which Lord Browne was to a very large degree
responsible.'

Tory MP Douglas Carswell also criticised the appointment. 'I've nothing against Lord Browne - no doubt an extremely capable man. But where do these new arrangements for overseeing government leave those representatives we actually voted for at election time?' he said.

'I thought it was the job of MPs to provide non- executive scrutiny of government. It should be for Parliament to appoint those who run government departments, not Lord Browne.'

But Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said: 'It's great news for the Government and taxpayer that Lord Browne has accepted this powerful role.

'His experience will be a real benefit in our drive to make Whitehall work in a more businesslike manner and I am looking forward to working with him to implement our vital reform programme.'

Lord Browne, 62, whose new role is unpaid, said: 'This is a role within government but also independent of it. Its purpose is to assist in the delivery of policy using relevant experience from business.

'There is a great need for the best of the business community to be involved during these challenging times for the UK.'

Last year, Lord Browne agreed to lead an inquiry into university tuition fees for Gordon Brown. In his new role, he will work with former Football Association chief executive Ian Watmore, who has been appointed chief operating officer of a new efficiency and reform group at the Cabinet Office, a £142,000 post.

Lord Browne also faced calls to resign from his ongoing review into the future of university funding amid questions about its legitimacy now he has taken a government post.

University and College Union general secretary Sally Hunt said: 'I am very concerned that Lord Browne has accepted this position.

'The independence of the fees review from government is paramount and the position of its chair integral to that.

'Accepting a job from David Cameron, a man who made it quite clear during the election campaign that he wanted university fees to stay, clearly brings the legitimacy of the review's independence into question. In the interest of this review retaining any legitimacy he should resign.'